rnk added a subscriber: chandlerc. rnk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#728683, @pcc wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#728629, @rnk wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#726861, @pcc wrote: > > > > > I think it would be better to move this logic to the driver and have it > > > pass in an `-mllvm` flag. The sanitizer passes should really be taking no > > > arguments in the constructor like the other passes, so I don't want us to > > > add another argument here. > > > > > > That seems like the opposite of the direction we've been moving, though. > > cl::opt flags can't appear twice, and this means one process can't do two > > asan compilations in two LLVMContexts in parallel with different settings. > > > Yes, but adding an argument is also the wrong direction. This information > should really be passed either via the module (e.g. module flags or > attributes) or the TargetMachine. If we aren't going to do that, we might as > well pass it via `-mllvm`, as it is simpler. I'm really just echoing what I thought was conventional wisdom. I think avoiding new `cl::opt`s is something that @chandlerc cares more about. It's been said on llvm-dev that `cl::opt` should mostly be for debugging. We should be able to ship a production compiler that effectively compiles every cl::opt to its default value. I don't see why constructor parameters are the wrong direction. It's already how ASan instrumentation takes every other global pass option. Only tsan uses -mllvm flags created by clang. If we aren't going to make ASan consistent, we should standardize on what we already have. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
